21. Analysis of predictors related to the outcome of conservative non-operative management of grade III - V blunt splenic trauma

Nguyen Van Thang, Le Thanh Dung, Ho Xuan Tuan, Pham Hong Duc

Main Article Content

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand the predictors and risk factors affecting the outcome of conservative nonsurgical treatment of splenic trauma. This is a descriptive study of 249 patients with grade III - V splenic injury on MDCT, who were treated at Viet Duc Friendship Hospital from January 2018 to September 2022. The results showed that 243/249 cases (97.6%) were successfully managed conservatively by medical and endovascular treatment. Univariate analysis showed that transfusion volume and degree of splenic injury were two predictors of failure of conservative treatment of splenic injury (p < 0.05). In contrast, other important factors such as age, co-morbidity of abdominal and/or cranial trauma were not contraindications to conservative treatment of splenic injury (p > 0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that the degree of splenic injury was the only predictor of failure of conservative nonoperative treatment (p < 0.05). As such, identifying predictors and risk factors based on a standardized plan will likely increase the success of this conservative management.

Article Details

References

1. Teuben MPJ, Spijkerman R, Blokhuis TJ, et al. Safety of selective nonoperative management for blunt splenic trauma: the impact of concomitant injuries. Patient Safety in Surgery. 2018/11/27 2018;12(1):32. doi:10.1186/s13037-018-0179-8
2. Ruhnke H, Jehs B, Schwarz F, et al. Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: The role of splenic artery embolization depending on the severity of parenchymal injury. European Journal of Radiology. 2021;137doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109578
3. Miller PR, Chang MC, Hoth JJ, et al. Prospective trial of angiography and embolization for all grade III to V blunt splenic injuries: nonoperative management success rate is significantly improved. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Apr;218(4):644-8. doi:10.1016/j.jam collsurg.2014.01.040.
4. Nguyen VT, Pham HD, Phan Nguyen Thanh V, et al. Splenic Artery Embolization in Conservative Management of Blunt Splenic Injury Graded by 2018 AAST-OIS: Results from a Hospital in Vietnam. International journal of general medicine. 2023;16:1695-1703. doi:10.2147/ijgm.S409267
5. King H, Shumacker HB, Jr. Splenic studies. I. Susceptibility to infection after splenectomy performed in infancy. Ann Surg. 1952;136(2):239-242. doi:10.1097/00000658-1 95208000-00006
6. Yiannoullou P, Hall C, Newton K, et al. A review of the management of blunt splenic trauma in England and Wales: have regional trauma networks influenced management strategies and outcomes? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99(1):63-69. doi:10.1308/rcsann.20 16.0325
7. Meira Júnior JD, Menegozzo CAM, Rocha MC, et al. Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: evolution, results and controversies. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021 May 7;48:e20202777. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-202 02777.
8. Böyük A, Gümüş M, Önder A, et al. Splenic injuries: factors affecting the outcome of non-operative management. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2012 Jun;38(3):269-74. doi:10.1 007/s00068-011-0156-8.
9. Godley CD, Warren RL, Sheridan RL, et al. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury in adults: age over 55 years as a powerful indicator for failure. J Am Coll Surg.1996 Aug;183(2):133-9.
10. Bankhead-Kendall B, Teixeira P, Musonza T, et al. Risk Factors for Failure of Splenic Angioembolization: A Multicenter Study of Level I Trauma Centers. Journal of Surgical Research. 2021;257:227-231. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.058